Friday, March 25, 2016

The Humble Comb Jelly Has a Through-Gut

The Theory is Superfluous

My friend Steve used to have an old Pontiac that was in shambles. Somewhere along the line the front bumper had fallen off, and somebody welded on an I-beam as a replacement. It was a rust bucket that was literally falling apart, but the funny things was, that old car just kept on running, seemingly on inertia. A hose might spring a leak or a belt might snap, but it kept on running. Steve’s Pontiac had become a fixture—for better or worse, it had been running for decades and it was unbelievable that it would ever stop. Why breakdown now, it could always run one more day.

Steve’s Pontiac was like the theory of evolution. It fails over and over, but just keeps on going. Our faith in it is unshakeable even though it is full of holes. I have long since given up on trying to document all of the scientific failures of our modern day Epicureanism.

But somebody at least must try. So here we go again.

Today’s falsification deals with the gut. We humans ingest our food into one hole and excrete it out another hole. The food makes its way through our body via the gut—it is a “through-gut.” But lesser organisms, such as sea anemones and jellyfish, send their waste back up and out, through the same hole that ingested the food.

According to evolution—you know the drill—the single-hole model was in the beginning, and later natural selection crafted the two-hole, through-gut, design, increasing efficiency and fortuitously making way for longer body plans and all sorts of other good things.

But now William Browne of the University of Miami in Florida has found that one of those lesser forms, the comb jelly (which is supposed to long predate not only the through-gut design but even many of the other single-hole creatures because, after all, that is what the DNA evidence says), in fact has been operating a through-gut all along. It just wasn’t obvious.

These findings have stunned evolutionists, for the humble comb jelly is not cooperating with the evolutionary pattern. As Kevin Kocot, evolutionary biologist at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, put it, “We have all these traditional notions of a ladderlike view of evolution, and it keeps getting shaken.”

Yes indeed, it “keeps getting shaken.” The hierarchical pattern evolutionists have predicted and celebrated does not exist—not in any meaningful way. The scientific evidence contradicts the theory of evolution.

And so—the second half of the drill—we have the patches and epicycles. Perhaps the comb jelly evolved through-guts on their own, independent of the other animals. Or perhaps the through-gut evolved once in an ancient animal ancestor, and subsequently became lost in anemones, jellyfish, and sponges.

Perhaps if you’re an anemone or a sponge stuck to a rock, suggests evolutionist George Matsumoto, a marine biologist at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California, it’s better to push waste back into the current rather than below.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

The evolutionary pattern is, once again, contradicted and, once again, the theory is contorted to the point that it is meaningless.

I once debated an evolutionist who insisted that evolution has explanatory value. No, it does not have explanatory value. The comb jelly was thought to be part of the evolutionary pattern. Now it violates that pattern, and it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because the theory doesn’t rule out any pattern. The comb jelly doesn’t fit—OK, then it is an exception. An anomaly. It went off by itself and evolved its own structures, independently.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps it is the rule, and not the exception, and the through gut was later lost in those other creatures which, in that case, would be the exceptions.

Whatever.

Any explanation will do, so long as we call it evolution.

The theory does not have explanatory value. It is meaningless. It is superfluous.

Like Steve’s Pontiac, it just keeps on running no matter how many failures.

Hate to tell you this, but you don't get a pass because it is a "fine detail." This is one of the classic canards of evolution. The evidence makes no sense on the theory, but it's a "fine detail" which can be swept under the rug. After all, we all know that the major evidences falsify, er I mean confirm, evolution. It's just those fine details that are the problem. Nothing we can't explain away with a few just-so stories.

Cornelius, in your last OP you commented about the impossibility of getting any paper that is critical of the theory of evolution published in a science journal. Yet, this research, performed by a scientist, was published in a science journal.

And you know what will follow? His work will be scrutinized, as it should be, and either accepted if it has merit or criticized if there is disagreement. In either case, it will spur on research into the origin of the through gut and, if necessary, the theory as we now understand it, will be modified.

For some reason, IDists think that modifying a theory so that it better fits the observed data is a bad thing. Maybe the evolution of a theory reminds them too much about the evolution of life forms.

Since you brought it up, suppose the Designer didn't design things to have things go in and out of the same hole, but there was a drastic change in the environment that left it much less fertile than before... one could even call it cursed.

Supposing that, maybe life either adapted or died. Maybe that could explain why there's so much "junk DNA" - DNA that was useful before but was expressed differently for a different environment.

And such an indecency as...a one-way digestive system was an adaptation to a world a bit different than it was created in.

This could actually be tested by a couple ways... breeding these animals in a different environment, and gene comparison to deduce whether the genes in these through creatures are present in the others... the latter might be a little difficult but who isn't up for a challenge?

It's like this, see. The evolutionists always tell me that it isn't about proof in science. It never is. It's about the preponderance of evidence. But it looks like the preponderance of evidence is against evolution. And with every new discovery, the evidence against evolution is just getting bigger and bigger.

Evolutionists have always told me that the fact that closely related organisms have similar features is evidence for evolution from common ancestors. Species who diverged more recently have more stuff in common. But when we see species that are similar in one way, then different in another way, it doesn't fit the expected pattern. So this finding undermines the evidence for evolution. This isn't direct evidence for ID, but rather negative evidence. But evolutionist are fine with negative evidence. Much of the evidence for evolution seems to be along the lines of "God wouldn't do it that way," or else "God didn't have to do it that way." The positive evidence for design is the fact that organism have characteristics that we know form our experiences are characteristics of designed things only. In fact the theory of evolution by natural selection is an attempt to explain the appearance of design without coming on to design.

Professor Hunter, you forgot to give us a link to the research. Please tell us more about the details of the comb jelly's gut. You say it "... has been operating a through-gut all along. It just wasn’t obvious."

Not obvious? We've been studying comb jellies for at least a century. If nobody noticed it has a through gut until now then it must be very subtle, very hard to notice and very unlike all the other organism's through guts that we've known about for centuries. What exactly is it like? Does it have a sphincter or is it just a slit or a hole? It's not hard to evolve a hole, you know.

You do realize that you're talking about a modern organism, don't you? Not a ten million year old fossile. Remember, evolution does NOT predict that once an organism evolves its descendants will never change again. They are allowed to change and evolving a hole is not that hard.

ID's biggest problem is selective hyperskepticism. You all come to the table believing that evolution is impossible and you jump at the flimsiest piece of evidence to shout that evolution is dead. You've been doing that literally since Darwin wrote, "Origin of Species". I would think that after the first century of embarrassment ID would slow down and think things over before claiming victory, but I guess not.

Not at all. I'm fine with evolution being true (in fact I'd be delighted if that were the case). I can go either way. It is the evolutionists who "come to the table" with their mind made up. Evolution being false is not an option for them.

Not obvious? We've been studying ... You do realize that you're talking about a modern organism, don't you? Not a ten million year old fossile. Remember, ...

You are demonstrating that this isn't about science for you. This is why evolution is not falsifiable. It doesn't actually rule out anything. Even experts in the field admit this is stunning, and goes against the predictions. But so what? Here you are giving us a demonstration of how evolution makes a mockery of the science.

You've been doing that literally since Darwin wrote, "Origin of Species".

You could care less about the science. That is the last thing that concerns you. This is all about protecting a world view for you, and then you point the finger and hypocritically indict me for your own crime.

What we have been doing ever since 1859 is pointing out the painfully obvious: the silly, ancient, idea that the world spontaneously arose is not from science, and violates the science. There is no excuse for your position. You Epicureans hold to a sheer absurdity, and you attack the messenger to hide your shame.

" Even experts in the field admit this is stunning, and goes against the predictions."

Experts in the biology and evolution fields. If it goes against the predictions it is either because it evolved later (convergent evolution is seen all over nature) or because our understanding of when the through gut evolved. My bet is on the former.

But the main point is that this was discovered by the same scientists that you claim actively resist any evidence that counters the consensus, and was published in a journal that you claim actively represses dissenting evidence.

You could care less about the science. That is the last thing that concerns you. This is all about protecting a world view for you, and then you point the finger and hypocritically indict me for your own crime.

If it goes against the predictions it is either because it evolved later (convergent evolution is seen all over nature) or because our understanding of when the through gut evolved. My bet is on the former.

Because you believe the world arose spontaneously, an absurd position that forces you to deny the scientific evidence.

Because you believe the world arose spontaneously, an absurd position that forces you to deny the scientific evidence.

For almost 160 years science has been asking Creationists to provide their evidence the world was designed and manufactured by supernatural guiding entity. To date not a single piece of such evidence has been seen.

"This is another bold-faced lie. Convergent evolution is not an observation but a superstitious interpretation by primitive minds who worship dirt as the mother of life."

Don't you just hate it when the kids can't allow the adults to have a conversation. It must be their immature "I am the centre of the universe" mentality. Now, Mapou, run along and play with your little friends. And remember what I said about bullying; it is not a sign of strength, just insecurity and cowardice.

This is why evolution is not falsifiable. It doesn't actually rule out anything.

Of course evolution is falsifiable. For example, finding that different animal "kinds" like cats and dogs had different, completely incompatible forms of DNA and therefore couldn't have a common ancestor would kill the current theory. Evolution is indeed falsifiable as are all scientific theories, it just hasn't been falsified. Your claims about every new scientific discovery being a falsification of the entire body of evolutionary theory are just silly.

Cornelius, on a totally off-topic issue, I would just like to comment on the fact that you post your OPs both here and at UD. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with this. I was just wondering if you have ever compared the number and level of comments for your OPs between the two sites?

Not withstanding Mapou's comments, there are far more comments posted on your site than at UD. And the level of discussion is better. This in spite of UD having a much larger audience. I suspect this has to do with Barry's approach to moderation.

No, I haven't made that kind of comparison although, yes, I have noted the difference in quantity you note.

What I am doing here is building up a rich resource for sociologists of future to mine and better understand how the Epicurean mythology works, and therefore mythologies in general. This archive of comments from evolutionists will greatly help in our understanding of myths and denialism.

" This archive of comments from evolutionists will greatly help in our understanding of myths and denialism."

I agree. The logical and evidence based comments here by evolutionists stand in stark contrast to the myths and denialism of the ID proponents. This contrast will greatly assist the sociologists in their work. You

And Mapou's comments will not go to waste either. But they will be examined by psychologists, not siciologists.

William Spearshake, "The logical and evidence based comments here by evolutionists stand in stark contrast to the myths and denialism of the ID proponents."

I went on a search for this thread to find the elusive evidence based comment. I found one well-thought comment from Dave Mullenix, but nothing else. It was mostly a request for information.

So what are you speaking of, this thread, or other threads on this site? Please don't suggest that you are reading "logical and evidence based" comments from ghostrider.

Ultimately, this site has had some pretty rich dialog in the past. I havn't seen it for a while (I haven't read everything by any means.) I agree with you that UD is way to restrictive, to rejecting of intelligent descent.

"Browne is currently exploring the latter theory by seeing whether comb jellies activate the same genes when developing their pores that other animals do when growing an anus. If he finds that the genes are different, the evolution of our most unspeakable body part will no longer be considered the singular event zoologists long supposed."

"Browne is currently exploring the latter theory by seeing whether comb jellies activate the same genes when developing their pores that other animals do when growing an anus. If he finds that the genes are different, the evolution of our most unspeakable body part will no longer be considered the singular event zoologists long supposed."

I would be willing to bet you're completely unaware of the fact this comment is a classic example of the 'heads I win, tails you lose' scenario. If the genes would be found to be the same the explanation would be common descent. If different, the explanation would be convergent evolution. Either way, it would be evidence for evolution.

In reality this is a clear example of Dr. Hunter's claim that evolution does not actually ever rule anything out and is therefore not falsifiable.

In reality this is a clear example of Dr. Hunter's claim that evolution does not actually ever rule anything out and is therefore not falsifiable.

evolution is certainly falsifiable Nic. I gave one example above. This recent comb jelly find while interesting won't do the job. You need to come up with a finding that refutes ALL the evidence, not just modifies one tiny corner of our understanding.

Falsification scenarios certainly exist. The real question is whether they would actually be allowed to falsify evolution or whether they would simply wind up being incorporated into the kaleidoscope which has become evolutionary theory.

"completely incompatible forms of DNA and therefore couldn't have a common ancestor would kill the current theory."

Notice your use of words in your comment. You do not see evolution per se being falsified, only the current form of evolutionary theory. In other words, a new form of evolutionary theory would be the result, not actual falsification.

Falsification scenarios certainly exist. The real question is whether they would actually be allowed to falsify evolution or whether they would simply wind up being incorporated into the kaleidoscope which has become evolutionary theory.

What would falsify the germ theory of disease? What would falsify the theory of gravity? Are those theories scientific?

You need to differentiate between what finds would have falsified evolutionary theory back when it was first introduced and what would falsify it now. Back then there are plenty of finds that if made would have killed the idea. Finding "kinds" as I mentioned would have stopped the idea of common descent in its tracks but those things weren't found. The fact is we have over 150 years of positive scientific evidence for evolution. It's hard to imagine any one find now that would reverse that century and a half of data. That's what makes the OPs at this site so funny. Every new scientific find no matter how small somehow negates the previous 150+ years of research. :)

By the way, thank you for your kind comments on an earlier thread.

You're welcome. As a rule I will respond in the same manner as I am addressed. Politeness begets politeness.

"Back then there are plenty of finds that if made would have killed the idea. Finding "kinds" as I mentioned would have stopped the idea of common descent in its tracks but those things weren't found."

The problem with that argument is that whenever contrary evidence is discovered the theory is merely adjusted and the new evidence is simply assimilated and thereby rendered non-contradictory. The idea that evolution has converged via separate lineages several times on the same feature such as the eye, flight, etc., being an example.

"What would falsify the germ theory of disease? What would falsify the theory of gravity? Are those theories scientific?"

It is logical that if something is fundamentally true it cannot, in actuality, be falsified even though a scenario for falsification can be proposed.

However, the theory of evolution (ie, the spontaneous origin of life and common descent from a single ancestor), comes no where near the threshold of being fundamentally true. In fact, anyone not dogmatically attached to the theory would have to admit it is receding from the threshold at a tremendous pace.

Nic: "If the genes would be found to be the same the explanation would be common descent. If different, the explanation would be convergent evolution. Either way, it would be evidence for evolution."

Common descent and convergent evolution are well understood aspects of evolution. Just because Cornelius picks one of these examples to "destroy" evolution, don't blame evolution.

GR is correct, there is plenty that could falsify evolution as we understand it. The appearance of a modern organism with a different body plan without any ancestors with intermediary ancestral transitions; the modern appearance in an organism of a gene for a new and unique protein without and ancestors having a similar DNA sequence.

Both of those would be strong arguments against evolution as we know it. Unfortunately, this would still not be evidence for ID.

Nic: "Notice your use of words in your comment. You do not see evolution per se being falsified, only the current form of evolutionary theory. In other words, a new form of evolutionary theory would be the result, not actual falsification."

Common descent is one of the fundamental pillars of the current theory of evolution. The current theory would be falsified. That is all that is required of science.

You are correct in that the theory that replaces it may very well be another theory of evolution. I hope that you don't think that for a falsification example to qualify as an acceptable falsification example that it must prove ID.

One way of looking at it (not completely accurate) is that the theory of evolution is the compilation and amalgamation of hundreds of hypotheses. Some hypotheses fail and are rejected, some fail and are modified, and some have not failed.

When Darwin proposed his theory, it was at a very simple level. We did not know about DNA and mutations and recombination and... With every one of these discoveries, it was found that they were consistent with the basic theory. Admittedly, sometimes requiring slight modifications.

The biggest weakness of ID is not its religious base. Cornelius is correct to some extent that modern science developed out of religion. Even Darwin was religious until later in life. The biggest weakness is that it has no way of realizing the design that IDist claim are evident in nature. And goes out of its way to avoid proposing any mechanism.

In Darwin's day, scientists thought that the cell was a blob of jelly, kinda simple. Now we know that the simplest cell is at least as complex as a city, and has all kinds of crazy complex nano-machines that have irreducible complexity, higjly specified complexity, functional integration or parts, all things which we know from making stuff are characteristics of designed things only. And IMHO, genetics did kinda pose a problem for Darwinism since it showed that inheritance is controlled by modules that are passed down intact from parent to offspring, w/o modification. No blended inheritance, no gemules. No way to account for the changes leading to diversity.

The problem with that argument is that whenever contrary evidence is discovered the theory is merely adjusted and the new evidence is simply assimilated and thereby rendered non-contradictory.

Er Nic, that is how science works. Every last scientific theory that's ever been put forward has been adjusted as new evidence or new details become available. That usually means a better understanding of some fine detail. It's rare a new find will completely overturn an old idea but it does happen, like the discovery that bacterial infection plays a large part in the formation of stomach ulcers.

There's nothing wrong with science modifying its understanding as it learns more. That's kinda the whole purpose of the scientific process.

And IMHO, genetics did kinda pose a problem for Darwinism since it showed that inheritance is controlled by modules that are passed down intact from parent to offspring, w/o modification.

Where in the world did you hear that dumb idea? The genetic reproduction process always introduces random changes to the genetic makeup of the new individual. In sexually reproducing species like humans you get around 150 mutations that weren't inherited from either parent. That provides the raw material for selection to act on.

Nic, first, my point is that even if we take the supposed "pattern" Cornelius is presenting at face value, it's not clear that pattern was actually broken.

Second, Cornelius is trying to portray evolutionary theory as prophecy, rather than an explanation of how part of the world works, which needs to be taken seriously with all of the rest of our current best theories, at the time we make observations.

So, it's not always win, win, as you're proposing. There are outcomes that would falsify evolution. It's just that we haven't run into any yet that falsify the theory as a whole. IOW, what Cornelius is trying to do is conflate falsifying the theory of the history of biology local life on earth, with the universal theory of evolution.

"Common descent and convergent evolution are well understood aspects of evolution."

Sure they are well understood aspects of evolution. But what if evolution is not true?

"GR is correct, there is plenty that could falsify evolution as we understand it."

I know there is. My point is that they would not be allowed to destroy it because it is not about the science, it's about the world view. Notice the use of the term 'as we understand it' at the end of your sentence. Evolution will not be falsified per se, but only as we presently understand it.

"The appearance of a modern organism with a different body plan without any ancestors,... Both of those would be strong arguments against evolution as we know it. Unfortunately, this would still not be evidence for ID."

That these are not known to have occurred is not evidence for evolution either. Again, notice your use of the term 'as we know it'. You simply cannot approach the idea that evolution may be wrong. You will only allow yourself to believe evolution as we understand it may be wrong, but never the basic idea of evolution itself.

True. However, the hypothesis if evolution is never discarded, it is only modified.

"When Darwin proposed his theory, it was at a very simple level. We did not know about DNA and mutations and recombination and... With every one of these discoveries, it was found that they were consistent with the basic theory."

That is where we must agree to disagree. They were made to fit the theory. They do not support the theory and that is the point ID is trying to demonstrate.

"The biggest weakness is that it has no way of realizing the design that IDist claim are evident in nature."

The evidence for design is to be found everywhere in nature. Because you refuse to recognize it as design does not alter one iota the fact the overwhelming appearance of design is abundant. Even such Luminaries as Crick have commented on the appearance of design, cautioning their readers they must resist this appearance and adhere to the belief there is no design.

I was not proposing it was always win-win. I was only pointing out that was the nature of the particular statement you quoted.

"It's just that we haven't run into any yet that falsify the theory as a whole."

But this is not a scientific statement, it is purely a statement of your personal belief. True, it is shared with many, but it is simply a statement of belief nonetheless. Many believe that threshold was crossed long ago.

Nic: "True. However, the hypothesis if evolution is never discarded, it is only modified."

That is because there have not been any observations that were significant enough to discard the theory. But it has certainly been modified over time. You make that sound like abad thing.

"They [new discoveries] were made to fit the theory."

No they weren't. The theory was modified to be consistent with the new discoveries.

"The evidence for design is to be found everywhere in nature. Because you refuse to recognize it as design does not alter one iota the fact the overwhelming appearance of design is abundant."

The appearance of design is not proof of design. Crystals appear to be designed. As do the rings of Saturn. to make a good argument for design you need to have an understanding of the mechanisms possibly used to realize the design.

However, the hypothesis of evolution is never discarded, it is only modified.

That's because there has been no reason(s) ever presented to discard it. The basic process of variation, differential selection, and heredity has been verified to such a degree it would be stupid to not accept it. The history of life on the planet is very complex and the explanation for the observed patterns (like convergent evolution) is sometimes also complex. When our understanding of some fine detail changes that doesn't make the overall process wrong.

Nic: "That these are not known to have occurred is not evidence for evolution either. Again, notice your use of the term 'as we know it'. You simply cannot approach the idea that evolution may be wrong. You will only allow yourself to believe evolution as we understand it may be wrong, but never the basic idea of evolution itself."

Empiricism was an improvement, because it promoted observations in science. But it got the role it plays backwards. Theories are tested using observations, not derived from them. So, observations do not prove theories are true. They serve as criticism. In science, criticism takes the form of empirical observations, as well as logical criticism, etc.

IOW, evolutionary theory has survived overwhelming empirical criticism, not overwhelming empirical positive evidence that it is true. And, "No", this isn't unique in the case of evolution, either.

Correct. Majority opinion is formed among science professionals by the strength of the positive evidence, which is why ToE is so overwhelmingly accepted.

That common descent occurred over deep time is not a scientific fact

Yes Nic, it is considered scientific fact. The patterns in the deep time fossil and genetic records are there for anyone to see. The theory that explains the mechanisms of how the patterns got there isn't a fact but it's by far the best explanation we have.

"Just like it's only the opinion of medical professionals that germs cause disease, right?"

Wrong! You're again confusing what is observable and demonstrable science with that which is not observable and demonstrable. Common descent, if it occurred was a one-off event which was not observed and cannot be demonstrated. That germs, in some instances, cause disease is observable, demonstrable, testable and repeatable. You really must learn that there is a difference.

"Certainly the views of experts on the subject matter more than ignorant laymen's opinions."

But not all experts share this view. But as you like to argue, the ones who matter do. If an expert does not share this view he simply does not matter and the problem is therefore solved.

"Correct. Majority opinion is formed among science professionals by the strength of the positive evidence, which is why ToE is so overwhelmingly accepted."

Overwhelming acceptance is no better at determining truth than is majority opinion.

"Yes Nic, it is considered scientific fact."

Sure it is. But again it is considered scientific fact only by those whose opinion matters. If scientists don't consider it a scientific fact, their opinion does not matter. Isn't that right?

"The process by which common descent occurs can be empirically demonstrated."

Please indicate in what way it is empirically demonstrable.

"As I just showed you, well over 99% of life science professionals do accept evolutionary theory."

And as I just replied, 99% is an imaginary number. I agree a huge majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution. But again, that is irrelevant to the actual truth of the question, as a huge majority does not determine truth.

"I provided a link to the poll information but apparently you didn't bother to look at it."

Polls determine truth even less than do majorities. So looking at your poll results would be of no consequence outside of curiosity.

"How the process works can be seen every time artificial selection in animal breeding is done."

Artificial selection demonstrates nothing more than canines produce canines and bovines produce bovines. Any conclusions beyond that are based completely on unsupported speculation and extrapolation.

Artificial selection in no way whatsoever demonstrates common descent. In fact it is an argument against common descent as any animal breeder will tell you there are strict limits as to what can actually be accomplished through the process of artificial selection.

Virtually all artificial selection is achieved via the removal of traits, not an addition of traits. For example, if you wish a dog to have long hair you breed out the gene which would produce short hair. Therefore, artificial selection is much more often than not a reduction of information not an increase.

As evolution from a single common ancestor would, by definition, require a massive increase in information for an organism to advance from pond sum to man, the reducing nature of artificial selection is hardly an observable demonstration of common descent

Also, artificial selection in its desire to produce certain traits can result in detrimental consequences for the animals as the tendency to inbreed to achieve the desired results can lead to a higher incidence of genetic disorders within a population.

"Same old creationist whine. They can't come up with any evidence against evolution so it must be a big evil conspiracy."

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

"Where is their evolution killing evidence published?"

No where. Evolution cannot be killed as it is a philosophically based world view and as such can only be vanquished by an individual changing his world view and accepting an alternative interpretation of the evidence.

The link was to show you the poll numbers you doubted, not to establish the truth of evolution.

As evolution from a single common ancestor would, by definition, require a massive increase in information for an organism to advance from pond sum to man, the reducing nature of artificial selection is hardly an observable demonstration of common descent

Known processes in reproduction such as gene duplication and frame shifts create new genetic sequences and new information. This has also been empirically observed.

"The link was to show you the poll numbers you doubted, not to establish the truth of evolution."

I never said I doubted polls existed or that the vast majority agree with evolution. I only said the 99% was rhetorical and it is.

"Known processes in reproduction such as gene duplication and frame shifts create new genetic sequences and new information. This has also been empirically observed."

Your reference did nothing to support your claim of an increase in information, it simply summarized various forms of genetic mutation.

"I see. So the people you listed supposedly reject evolution for scientific reasons but you can't show that science. Hmmm..."

You missed my point. I meant you would have to read their work with an open mind, otherwise it would be pointless.

A.E. Wilder-Smith published several books. Kenyon co-authored Of Pandas and People. If you google Dr. Gary Parker you will find several articles he has written. Yes, they are published in creationist magazines, but if you truly have an open mind that should be irrelevant.

No Nic, it wasn't rhetorical. It was the result of an actual poll of scientists.

Your reference did nothing to support your claim of an increase in information, it simply summarized various forms of genetic mutation.

The information is a genome is defined as the determination of the genetic sequence. Any process which creates a new genetic sequence as those listed do creates new information.

A.E. Wilder-Smith published several books.

Here's a Wilder-Smith quote:

"The Bible teaches us that we are the living lessons that God uses to demonstrate His divine wisdom to the angelic beings as He works in us. How God deals with us in this world demonstrates His character to the angels! "

No science there.

Kenyon co-authored Of Pandas and People.

LOL! The cdesignproponentist book. We all know how that one turned out.

If you google Dr. Gary Parker you will find several articles he has written.

I found this on his Creation Ministries webpage

"Dr. Gary Parker shows how, step by step, the Lord helped him to see the false assumptions behind modern evolutionary belief, and how the Bible’s account of origins fits the facts."

"The information is a genome is defined as the determination of the genetic sequence. Any process which creates a new genetic sequence as those listed do creates new information."

I guess that would depend on how you define new information. Most mutations are neutral and have no effect. As such one could hardly argue the result would be new information. Other mutations are detrimental in nature and can cause catastrophic damage. I really have never heard of a mutation which truly resulted in a positive effect of the magnitude and nature required to support the argument of descent from a single common ancestor. If you have such an example I would be glad to hear it.

"Here's a Wilder-Smith quote:

"The Bible teaches us that we are the living lessons that God uses to demonstrate His divine wisdom to the angelic beings as He works in us. How God deals with us in this world demonstrates His character to the angels! "

Seriously, that is what you're going to go with, one minor quote from the hundreds of thousands of paragraphs written by Wilder-Smith?

I must say I am disappointed, not surprised at all, but disappointed that you pay so little respect to the writings of these men, all of whom are highly educated in their fields. That is not an intellectually honest approach to the question and truthfully, you should be ashamed of your attitude. I am not afraid to read material written by evolutionists, so why are you so afraid to expand your horizons?

"Dr. Gary Parker shows how, step by step, the Lord helped him to see the false assumptions behind modern evolutionary belief, and how the Bible’s account of origins fits the facts."

Why not try reading it? Maybe you might learn something, or is that what you're afraid of? If the assumptions behind evolutionary thought are indeed false wouldn't that be good to know?

I used to be an evolutionist but changed my view because I was willing to keep an open mind. Sorry to have to say it but I don't sense that from you. I sense an intensely dogmatic individual who refuses to even entertain the concept that he may be backing the wrong horse.

"Looks like the Lord did it, not science."

Why do you hold to the idea that the two are diametrically opposed? After all, science is not an actual entity, it is only a process of investigation and one who is honestly approaching an investigation should be willing to go where the evidence leads, should he not?

That is not an intellectually honest approach to the question and truthfully, you should be ashamed of your attitude.

Heh. An intellectually honest person doesn't hand wave away all the evidence he can't explain with a lame excuse like this:

"Acceptance and majority opinion is also driven by presuppositions vis a vis world view, the quest for tenure, research grants and the desire to toe the party line, etc."

But go ahead, give me your better explanation for the empirically observed twin nested hierarchies of life, the matching evolutionary tree patterns seen in the deep time fossil and genetic records. Please support your claims with the appropriate published scientific research, not crap from AIG or ICR.

I want you to support this assertion with detailed evidence, not just some isolated examples; which I will admit do exist, they exist in evolution community as well; but detailed and abundant evidence that this state of affairs entailing nonsense, misrepresentations and outright lies is rampant throughout the creationist community. I want you to demonstrate the scientists who support the idea of creation are incompetent and deceitful as you claim.

I keep on hearing that all the problems with evolution are okay, because in science it never is about proof, but rather the preponderance of evidence. I am always told that no single piece of evidence can destroy evolution, because there is just soooooooo much evidence for so any single piece is just explained away as an anomaly, or something we can explain in the future, with more research. So, it seems that evolution is indeed unfalsifiable, just call any problem an anomaly, and say that;s how science works.

During the OPERA excitement, scientists ran an experiment that resulted in a problem for Einstein's theory that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. Specially, they observed tachyons breaking his speed limit.

Did this alone falsify Einstein's theory? No, it did not. This is because the researchers lacked a theory which explained why tachyons traveled faster in the in OPERA experiment, but not all other experiments. IOW, before a theory is replaced, not only do we need a replacement theory that explains current observations just as well, but goes on to explain even more observations.

This is because observations themselves are theory laden. The very idea that a tachyon traveled at any speed is based on a number of theories, including how to correctly setup an accurate test environment. OPERA discovered they had a loose Ethernet cable and a misscalibrated timer that accounted for the specific discrepancy between their results and all other results.

So, observations can be wrong. Or they can be misleading because other theories about how the world works, that we must take seriously when making them can be wrong.

For example, the absence of a transitional fossil is a problem for evolution, only if our current, best theories suggest that all species should always fossilize under all conditions. But our current, best explanation of how fossilization works indicates that it only occurrs under specific conditions, not all. So, there absence is not necessarily a good criticism of evolutionary theory.

This is why scientific theories are not prophecy. No theory can account for all other distinct, yet related theories that could effect what we actually end up observing. What you would need is an infallible source that could account for all possible related theories that could impact the outcome in the future. That's prophecy, not science.

This is why Cornelios keep conflating being mistaken about the theory of life on earth and or the discovery of another form of vssriation and criticism, like HTG, etc., with evolution as a universal theory.

He wants to portray evolutionary theory as prophecy because it suits his purpose.

I was an ethernet cable long ago, so I know a thing or two about ethernet cables. I'll tell you the only time I ever saw one fail was one that was deliberately broken. Ethernet cables in a building aren't telephone wires swaying in the wind...

And Windows PCs automatically sync their clocks using a specialized protocol called NTP. UNIX PCs are known to do this also. That is to say, suppose this ethernet cable was on a telephone pole, NTP would readjust the time towards the correct time when the cable was "on" and use the learned information about the computer's clock oscillator (yep, NTP's that cool) to correct drift while the cable was "off."

And... let's be honest, if a loose cable caused the time to drift on an important enough machine, that important enough machine wouldn't be accessible to be a part of the experiments.

Did I do that, are you implying tachyons really did break the speed limit in the OPERA experiment, and the "Ethernet and time story" is just yet another conspiracy by the science community, like evolutionay theory?

But that assumes general purpose millisecond resolution clocks found on Windows and UNIX systems are accurate enough to check the speed of tachyons. Also, I've seen dozens of Ethernet cables go bad or need to be reseated to prevent intermittent or degraded connectivity.

Even then, you'd still be missing a explanation that not only explains the same observations just as well, but explained even more, such as why tachyons traveled faster in the OPERA experiment, but not others. There could be some other reason why the results were wrong.

Furthermore, All theories have are incomplete and contain errors to some degree. For example, we know that Einstein's theory contains errors because we lack a working theory of quantum gravity. So, it's not a question of if we're wrong, but to what degree and where.

This is how science works in general. Of course, this view of science does not fit Cornelious' view that evolution is bad science, which is falling apart at the seams, etc.

I don't know if tachyons can, did, should, or will exceed the speed of light.

I do, however, after some more thought about it, think the most likely scenario is bad auto-negotiation of duplex and speed, usually caused by older networking equipment. This erratic operation would make accurate synchronization of the clocks using external timing sources like an atomic clock difficult.

This is different than a "loose" cable and it bugs me. Would the people designing the experiment make it so the computers detect the time at which a particle passes, to be then processed by hand? (when it makes more sense to obtain the results in real time or by a batch process)?

I doubt it, so a loose cable either works or doesn't and therefore the experiment either runs or doesn't. What can I say...

To touch on a couple other things you mentioned:

Your PC has a 10MHz timer called the HPET - which is good for 100ns. Not good enough for measuring tachyons, but certainly better than millisecond or microsecond timing you mentioned.

This bad auto-negotiation can make it look like a reseating of an ethernet cable fixed a problem caused by the cable while in fact the networking equipment was at fault.

Nat, three different examples have been given above about how evolution as we know it could be falsified. And then you come right back stating that it can't be falsified. Never addressing one of the examples given.

I would give you more examples of how evolution could be falsified, but what would be the point. You would simply ignore them.

Or maybe the evolutionists would do what they always do, and say it is just an anomaly. They do that whenever the DNA evidence contradicts the morphology. Or when irreducibly complex things are found, they say that there just have to have been some unknown functional intermediates. There just had to have been. Or when the problem of numbers and time frames pops up, the answer is there must have been some sort of co-opting from a pre-existing protein or some such. There just had to have been. Mention the lack of transitions inthe fossil record, the answer is that evolution happens too fast to be caught, that is , punctuated equilibrium. Ask why we don't see evolution happening now, the answer that it happens to slow to be seen. Always another epicycle. Tell me, since science is all about hte preponderance of evidence, where is the tipping point? When the preponderance of evidence become against evolution. Ti seems like evolutionists keep on moving the tipping point up the teeter-totter.

Since Cornelius denies there is a explanation behind evolutionary theory, it would come as no surprise that he acts as if it is is merely a number of arbitrary predictions to either be observed or not observed (prophecy). You cannot take the theory seriously as an explanation of how the world works unless you think there are actual explanations in the first place.

And, expansions must be avoided at all cost. After all, if something can be explained, then an inexplicable mind in an inexplicable realm couldn't have done it.

The majority of biology that I've learned in my life, I've learned from evolutionists. Everything in my post I got from evolutionist. So if i'm wrong, that means that evolutionists are wrong. I'm merely paraphrasing what I got from them. /so guess we reached the tipping point.

WilliamThis claim has been discredited so many times I don't want to waste my time on it when a 30 second Google search will answer it for you."

Do you really believe that the problem of darwinian mechanisms building a 30 protein motor has been discredited? This requires about 4^40000 of genome space to become precisely organized in order to build these motors every 20 minutes. What's the mechanism that got the genome to organize in order to build these?

BC:"What's the mechanism that got the genome to organize in order to build these?"

ghostrider: "Chemistry."

This is why you need to read more. Dean Kenyon wrote the textbook on chemical evolution; BIOCHEMICAL PREDESTINATION; McGraw Hill, 1969. He now categorically denies the possibility of randomly occurring chemical processes can lead to the origin of life. That shipload of arguments sank a long time ago, my friend.

This is why you need to read more. Dean Kenyon wrote the textbook on chemical evolution; BIOCHEMICAL PREDESTINATION; McGraw Hill, 1969. He now categorically denies the possibility of randomly occurring chemical processes can lead to the origin of life.

How many other scientists has he convinced with his 45 year old book?

BTW Kenyon is a well known YEC. That alone disqualifies him from any serious scientific discussions on OOL or evolution.

"How many other scientists has he convinced with his 45 year old book?"

I don't know, but it was the standard textbook used to teach chemical evolution for many years. You see, ghostrider, Biochemical Predestination is a pro-evolution book written at a time when Kenyon was an evolutionist. That's why it is good to read more.

"BTW Kenyon is a well known YEC. That alone disqualifies him from any serious scientific discussions on OOL or evolution."

So again, we attack the source and not the content. He certainly wasn't unqualified to discuss OOL or evolution when he was an ardent evolutionist writing textbooks used to teach both subjects. I'm quite sure if he was still doing so you would be quoting him to support your position. But I guess he must have hit his head hard at some point because now he is an idiot, right?

Sorry Nic but any moron who thinks the world is only 6000 years old and that all extant species came from a few pairs on a wooden boat while the whole planet was covered with a megaflood only 4500 years ago is too scientifically ignorant to take seriously.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of the KT iridium boundary layer and why no dino fossils are found above it. I guess you're going to punt on that one too.

Sorry, this is still just a personal attack on the man, not his science. As I said, he was smart enough to be taken seriously when he was an evolutionist.

"I'm still waiting for your explanation of the KT iridium boundary layer and why no dino fossils are found above it. I guess you're going to punt on that one too."

Well, I haven't punted on anything yet so I am not likely to start now. We will probably get to that but I first want you to demonstrate your claim that all creation science is guilty of nonsense, misrepresentations and outright lies. When we deal with that we will see how you feel about K-T.

I learned punctuated equilibrium by reading Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist. And whenever I ask why we don't see new species forming the standard answer is that it happens too slow. And the standard answer for irreducibility is functional intermediates, isn't it? How else do you explain the flagellum. And isn't the standard answer for the problem of protein evolution taking too long co-apting? I got that from evolutionists. See, any problem can be explained away with the rankest speculation because, well, the preponderance of evidence. Tell me, when do we reach the tipping point?

Then you also learned Gould was fed up by dishonest creationists misusing his work

S.G.Jould "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

And whenever I ask why we don't see new species forming the standard answer is that it happens too slow.

We do see incipient speciation occurring.

And the standard answer for irreducibility is functional intermediates, isn't it?

IC structures are known to form naturally by processes such as scaffolding.

And isn't the standard answer for the problem of protein evolution taking too long co-apting?

There is no problem with the time for protein formation. That is an out and out Creationist lie.

I got that from evolutionists.

You misrepresented everything you got.

See, any problem can be explained away with the rankest speculation because, well, the preponderance of evidence.

Any valid scientific explanation can be hand waved away by ignorant creationists.

So I was correct when I said that SJG, an evolutionist devsed punctuated equilibrium as a way to explain away a problem? Goody.

And incipient isn't exactly the same as really seeing a complete species, is it? Takes too long, right.

Isn't scaffolding another term for functional intermediates. Even if it isn't, it's an attempt to explain away a problem, like I said.

And the way evolutionists explain the problems in protein evolution like time frames and probabilities is by saying co-apting from analogous proteins. Anyway, at what point do we say that the preponderance is against evolution? I'm just curious.

Another nail in the coffin. The fraudulent theory of Darwinian evolution is now being exposed on a daily basis. Its rabid followers are still scratching and clawing to remain relevant, but deep down they know they have wasted decades following a lie. They are a tormented group of people for sure.

Please remind me, what universities and high schools are currently teaching ID? How many peer reviewed journals are publishing ID papers? Let me correct that, how many peer reviewed journals are publishing ID papers where the authors are not part of the editorial board?

Please don't confuse US law with the law in the rest of the world. Canada teaches evolution in school and not ID in spite of no law requiring it. Could it possibly be because ID does not have any compelling evidence supporting it?